Player Discussion How high AAV would you go for Krug?

Assuming a 6 year deal, how high AAV would you go for Krug?

  • 5.5

  • 6

  • 6.5

  • 7

  • 7.5

  • 8

  • 8.5

  • 9

  • 9.5


Results are only viewable after voting.

RoccoF14

Registered User
Mar 1, 2016
5,390
7,999
Chicago, IL
Very much disagree on that. Look at how that's worked out for a bunch of teams across the league, including us with Backes. The Seabrook deal. Can't do stuff like that anymore, especially when you have an extremely deep D core that can handle his loss.
Spot on.

Don't get me wrong, Krug is a very good player, but he can be replaced by McAvoy on the power play and I don't think the drop off in production would be too significant, although I do concede that there would be a drop off......
 

BruinsBtn

Registered User
Dec 24, 2006
22,080
13,546
What?

There’s no such thing as a good free agent signing? That’s just how the marketplace works?

Here's how it works: Justin Faulk is a much worse player than Torey Krug and got $6.5m. Torey Krug isn't going to take less money than a much worse player.

Cry all you want. $7m is a hometown discount. That's the market.

Now you could argue it's changed because of COVID but I'll believe that when I see players taking big discounts.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
Here's how it works: Justin Faulk is a much worse player than Torey Krug and got $6.5m. Torey Krug isn't going to take less money than a much worse player.

Cry all you want. $7m is a hometown discount. That's the market.

Now you could argue it's changed because of COVID but I'll believe that when I see players taking big discounts.
Who’s crying? :laugh:

It’s not one-to-one and never has been. That’s what the Blues felt Faulk was worth to their organization. It’s up to the Bruins to do their own assessment.

And yes, Krug should be higher than that. I just hope Sweeney is savvy enough to spend that money elsewhere.
 

member 96824

Guest
I like most of your contributions to this board. Well-informed and articulated opinions. Usually fair and balanced.

This is not one of those posts.

I don't really even understand why this piece was necessary. I asked to agree to disagree, you've continued on. Ok, that's fine, we'll continue on. I feel I've been articulate in how I'm presenting my side and coming from an informed place. I've laid out comps, I laid out an entire roster on how it fits, I've thrown out alternatives to clear cap space, asked questions of those I disagree with.

That's more than I can say for you. But, you don't agree with it so you toss bullshit like this out. Ok, we'll take it there I guess.

1. Nope! Not what I’m saying at all. You’re either not reading what I wrote, or your choosing to ignore it to be argumentative. He IS worth more. I just don’t want the Bruins to be the team to pay it for the factors I laid out previously.

It’s exactly what you’re saying. You’re saying it again here. Anything above basic salary cap inflation and Krug is not worth that to the Bruins. We’re talking Bruins. This is a Bruins board. The discussion at hand is what would the Bruins pay. Your point is Krug isn’t worth more to the Bruins than he was 4 years ago and shouldn’t get a raise more than $15,000 above salary cap inflation.

2. Strawman. Bergeron, Krejci, etc aren’t up for contract renewal. That’s a discussion we can (and should) have when they are. I’m sure there will be differing opinions of value when the time comes for them too.

Krejci has one year left on his deal, Rask has one year left on his deal, Bergeron is 35 years old and expires the summer after next. You’re saying you’ll actively choose not to re-sign Krug today, cause you’re worried about the value of the deal in 5 or 6 years. Ok then what’s the decision on those players who won’t be here in 5 to 6 years?

There are three basic windows to team building in my opinion. There's asset gathering, asset spending, tear down. The Bruins right now, presidents trophy winners/stanley cup finalists, are asset spending. Their core is built to go for it now. They have the cap to go for it now. They have one of the most productive defenders in the NHL coming up for expiration right now, who will be in his prime producing years for at least another 3, but I would argue later because of Krug's style and reliance on awareness vs. raw athletic ability. I made those points earlier, but they were in a post you ignored. If you'd like to see why I'm comfortable giving Krug 6, it's because I believe he ages better than the average NHL defensemen due to that reliance on hockey sense and his curve looks more similar to a Suter or Rafalski than say, a Milan Lucic type drop off.
evd-war-graph.png


You're arguing that they can't give that to him because it might not be a good deal when Patrice Bergeron is 40...that those final years of a Krug deal, again, ignoring any possibility of ever being able to execute a trade....Somehow that's gone, but you're arguing that the possibility of those years going bad outweighs the good that could happen for this core in particular. That the future is more important than the present. So, if you're not asset spending, what are you doing?

Some straw man...

4. The point on the expansion draft seems to be missed. The idea is under one scenario, you get to choose the player you want to keep, rather than simply allowing the Kraken to take the more valuable of the two. That you would keep Krug over both is inconsequential. No one is suggesting that Gryz is worth $7.5M/yr.

I would keep Krug at $7.5 over Lauzon or Gryz at whatever they come in at this summer. This point is just like Joker's "oh well we can't keep Krug cause we have to sign Nordstrom. Who cares? 1. You can work with Seattle and 2. Regardless, you're losing one of the two. What happens if the left side turns out to be inadequate and you have to go to the market? I'm amazed at the lack of imagination and assumption that the roster today is the roster in perpetuity and there is nothing that can be done. What if the left side is inadequate rolling a 43 year old Chara, Gryz, and Lauzon?

If Don Sweeney passes on icing the best team possible to win a cup in 2020-2021 with this core because he's worried that instead of him picking Jeremy Lauzon or Matt Gryzcelyk, Seattle gets to he should be fired on the spot because he's not the right person to be managing this team at this moment. Period. Unless he agrees with you that the focus shouldn't be on winning now, it should be retaining the best roster for the next window 5 years from now. That involves a tear down. If that's what you're advocating for, then we just don't see eye to eye.

3. You want to argue that Sweeney doesn’t have a great track record with his UFAs? I agree! And I’d hope that he’d hit on the next acquisition as he attempts to improve the roster. Or should he not even try because he’s so bad at it?

The question is where the cap space is best allocated. The defence wouldn’t be as good without Krug, but it would still be among the best units in the NHL. The Bruins depth scoring however, is nowhere near.

5. “Tell me specifically who-how-much-and-for-what-and-where?” AKA “build me a strawman so I can burn it down.” Worst argument one makes on these boards and I see it all the time. I’d suggest someone and then you’d pick it apart. That specific guy can’t be acquired. That specific guy is overrated. That guy wouldn’t fit. That guy is overpaid. Because that guy doesn’t work for you, that makes me wrong and you right. It’s horsepiss.

Is your argument that an addition to the forwards is impossible? Because if we can concede that it isn’t, then we’re just debating preference in how the cap is spent. Not this wild, pure fantasy that you seem to be implying.

I'm truly disappointed that you won't even put skin in the game on a hypothetical. Your point "oh they can just go out and get someone with that money" is completely 100% useless if it doesn't have a scenario attached to it. I tossed my roster out showing why I think the best team the B's can ice has a $7.5M Torey Krug on it. Don't quote reply me, tell me I'm not being articulate, balanced, informed, accuse me of making strawman arguments, etc. until you're willing to actually put something out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Over the volcano

member 96824

Guest
Here's how it works: Justin Faulk is a much worse player than Torey Krug and got $6.5m. Torey Krug isn't going to take less money than a much worse player.

Cry all you want. $7m is a hometown discount. That's the market.

Now you could argue it's changed because of COVID but I'll believe that when I see players taking big discounts.

Throw in Jared Spurgeon at $7.575 as well from this past season

Evolving-Hockey takes a data driven approach + uses comparables and pegs him at $7.4 on a 6 year, and that's signing on the open market, not with the Bruins.

Thehockeywriters also tossed some data to it and came to 7.16 for a 6 year just based on points only. Their methodology is here: https://thehockeywriters.com/bruins-torey-krug-too-expensive/
Krug-Projection-Final-1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Over the volcano

Smitty93

Registered User
Dec 6, 2012
8,196
9,361
I would keep Krug at $7.5 over Lauzon or Gryz at whatever they come in at this summer. This point is just like Joker's "oh well we can't keep Krug cause we have to sign Nordstrom. Who cares? 1. You can work with Seattle and 2. Regardless, you're losing one of the two. What happens if the left side turns out to be inadequate and you have to go to the market? I'm amazed at the lack of imagination and assumption that the roster today is the roster in perpetuity and there is nothing that can be done. What if the left side is inadequate rolling a 43 year old Chara, Gryz, and Lauzon?

But I was told trades are hard :sarcasm:

In all seriousness, I think you're more convinced of Krug's ability to age gracefully than many of us here. I think we'd all agree he's more quick than fast. He's not a good defender as is, and that's with getting more offensive zone starts than any other defenseman in the league. What happens if he loses a step? I guess the response to that is you assume he won't lose a step until it's later in the contract and they'll no longer be contenders at that point so it won't matter. However, Sweeney has not shown to be an all-in type of GM and I would guess that his strategy is on keeping them as contenders long-term vs. trying to take advantage of a certain window. Now, many may not like that, but unless you've got enough pull to get him fired, there's nothing we can do about it.

My argument for playing hardball (and hardball for me would be something like $6.5M for 6 years) is that they may be able to find a better use for that money to help the team. I would argue that 90% of Krug's value is his powerplay skills, which means you're basically paying him for the 4 minutes a game that he's on the powerplay. Now, we could talk about whether that's an efficient use of money, but I'm going to ignore that. If his value is mostly tied to his powerplay performance, then the question becomes how irreplaceable is he. I went through a comparison in the other thread showing how the powerplay did not suffer in the games he missed for injury, albeit in a small sample size. Now, I don't think the powerplay will actually be as good without him, but I think they could make up for that in other ways.

My belief is that the team could be better off if they used that money on a top 6 forward. It's possible the defense would improve and the 5-on-5 offense could improve, and combined they'd make up for the drop in powerplay. The caveat to that is Sweeney's got a horrific track record when it comes to free agent signings, so I don't necessarily trust him to spend that money wisely, but if I were the GM, it's what I'd look to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrainOfJ

JOKER 192

Blow it up
Sponsor
Jun 14, 2010
19,695
18,602
Montreal,Canada
I don't really even understand why this piece was necessary. I asked to agree to disagree, you've continued on. Ok, that's fine, we'll continue on. I feel I've been articulate in how I'm presenting my side and coming from an informed place. I've laid out comps, I laid out an entire roster on how it fits, I've thrown out alternatives to clear cap space, asked questions of those I disagree with.

That's more than I can say for you. But, you don't agree with it so you toss bullshit like this out. Ok, we'll take it there I guess.



It’s exactly what you’re saying. You’re saying it again here. Anything above basic salary cap inflation and Krug is not worth that to the Bruins. We’re talking Bruins. This is a Bruins board. The discussion at hand is what would the Bruins pay. Your point is Krug isn’t worth more to the Bruins than he was 4 years ago and shouldn’t get a raise more than $15,000 above salary cap inflation.



Krejci has one year left on his deal, Rask has one year left on his deal, Bergeron is 35 years old and expires the summer after next. You’re saying you’ll actively choose not to re-sign Krug today, cause you’re worried about the value of the deal in 5 or 6 years. Ok then what’s the decision on those players who won’t be here in 5 to 6 years?

There are three basic windows to team building in my opinion. There's asset gathering, asset spending, tear down. The Bruins right now, presidents trophy winners/stanley cup finalists, are asset spending. Their core is built to go for it now. They have the cap to go for it now. They have one of the most productive defenders in the NHL coming up for expiration right now, who will be in his prime producing years for at least another 3, but I would argue later because of Krug's style and reliance on awareness vs. raw athletic ability. I made those points earlier, but they were in a post you ignored. If you'd like to see why I'm comfortable giving Krug 6, it's because I believe he ages better than the average NHL defensemen due to that reliance on hockey sense and his curve looks more similar to a Suter or Rafalski than say, a Milan Lucic type drop off.
evd-war-graph.png


You're arguing that they can't give that to him because it might not be a good deal when Patrice Bergeron is 40...that those final years of a Krug deal, again, ignoring any possibility of ever being able to execute a trade....Somehow that's gone, but you're arguing that the possibility of those years going bad outweighs the good that could happen for this core in particular. That the future is more important than the present. So, if you're not asset spending, what are you doing?

Some straw man...



I would keep Krug at $7.5 over Lauzon or Gryz at whatever they come in at this summer. This point is just like Joker's "oh well we can't keep Krug cause we have to sign Nordstrom. Who cares? 1. You can work with Seattle and 2. Regardless, you're losing one of the two. What happens if the left side turns out to be inadequate and you have to go to the market? I'm amazed at the lack of imagination and assumption that the roster today is the roster in perpetuity and there is nothing that can be done. What if the left side is inadequate rolling a 43 year old Chara, Gryz, and Lauzon?

If Don Sweeney passes on icing the best team possible to win a cup in 2020-2021 with this core because he's worried that instead of him picking Jeremy Lauzon or Matt Gryzcelyk, Seattle gets to he should be fired on the spot because he's not the right person to be managing this team at this moment. Period. Unless he agrees with you that the focus shouldn't be on winning now, it should be retaining the best roster for the next window 5 years from now. That involves a tear down. If that's what you're advocating for, then we just don't see eye to eye.



I'm truly disappointed that you won't even put skin in the game on a hypothetical. Your point "oh they can just go out and get someone with that money" is completely 100% useless if it doesn't have a scenario attached to it. I tossed my roster out showing why I think the best team the B's can ice has a $7.5M Torey Krug on it. Don't quote reply me, tell me I'm not being articulate, balanced, informed, accuse me of making strawman arguments, etc. until you're willing to actually put something out there.


I never made the argument that you can't sign Krug because you have to sign Nordstrom, thats BS and you know it. My argument is that the band will get broken up one way or the other. If you sign Krug for 7.5 your gonna have to give up one of the players needing a new contract. As you illistrated yourself when you left Chara of the roster. That is my argument and I have made that abundantly clear. I could care less if they resign Nordy and it's irrelevant anyway because if it's not Nordy it's someone else and the difference in salary will not be significant.

You keep on with your argument that we are worried about what is gonna happen in 5 years or more which is another argument neither I nor MMB have made. I just feel that the team will be fine without Krug full stop. Nothing to do with 4,5,6,7 or 8 years from now. If you score 10 less PP goals because you lost Krug but you were able to allow 10 less goals 5 on 5 because the Dman taking Krug's place is better a defending isn't that kinda the same, hence the many ways to skin a cat. That is the argument not signing Nordy nor what is happening 5 years from now. So please be more honest, stop with the strawman arguments.
 

GordonHowe

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2005
15,378
15,748
Watertown, Massachusetts
Who’s crying? :laugh:

It’s not one-to-one and never has been. That’s what the Blues felt Faulk was worth to their organization. It’s up to the Bruins to do their own assessment.

And yes, Krug should be higher than that. I just hope Sweeney is savvy enough to spend that money elsewhere.

The number I hear from Kirk Luedeke and Court LaLonde is something close to $7.2.

I think this is fair, and I don't want to lose Torey. He brings a proven record of scoring, tremendous competitiveness and leadershipt to the Bruins.
 

member 96824

Guest
I never made the argument that you can't sign Krug because you have to sign Nordstrom, thats BS and you know it. My argument is that the band will get broken up one way or the other. If you sign Krug for 7.5 your gonna have to give up one of the players needing a new contract. As you illistrated yourself when you left Chara of the roster. That is my argument and I have made that abundantly clear. I could care less if they resign Nordy and it's irrelevant anyway because if it's not Nordy it's someone else and the difference in salary will not be significant.

You keep on with your argument that we are worried about what is gonna happen in 5 years or more which is another argument neither I nor MMB have made. I just feel that the team will be fine without Krug full stop. Nothing to do with 4,5,6,7 or 8 years from now. If you score 10 less PP goals because you lost Krug but you were able to allow 10 less goals 5 on 5 because the Dman taking Krug's place is better a defending isn't that kinda the same, hence the many ways to skin a cat. That is the argument not signing Nordy nor what is happening 5 years from now. So please be more honest, stop with the strawman arguments.

Dude f*** off with the strawman bullshit. I’m only responding to the points you and MMB make. One of your points was paying Joakim Nordstrom an extension before you got to Krug. Finally you got to your actual point on the bolded.

But..As I said, I left $2.1M in cap space on my roster. That can be used for Chara or whatever we want. I didn’t illustrate that the band gets broken up. Who did I subtract? I didn’t even trade Moore. I illustrated that your point that there’s no way to keep Krug unless he takes 6 was absolutely foolish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

member 96824

Guest
But I was told trades are hard :sarcasm:

In all seriousness, I think you're more convinced of Krug's ability to age gracefully than many of us here. I think we'd all agree he's more quick than fast. He's not a good defender as is, and that's with getting more offensive zone starts than any other defenseman in the league. What happens if he loses a step? I guess the response to that is you assume he won't lose a step until it's later in the contract and they'll no longer be contenders at that point so it won't matter. However, Sweeney has not shown to be an all-in type of GM and I would guess that his strategy is on keeping them as contenders long-term vs. trying to take advantage of a certain window. Now, many may not like that, but unless you've got enough pull to get him fired, there's nothing we can do about it.

My argument for playing hardball (and hardball for me would be something like $6.5M for 6 years) is that they may be able to find a better use for that money to help the team. I would argue that 90% of Krug's value is his powerplay skills, which means you're basically paying him for the 4 minutes a game that he's on the powerplay. Now, we could talk about whether that's an efficient use of money, but I'm going to ignore that. If his value is mostly tied to his powerplay performance, then the question becomes how irreplaceable is he. I went through a comparison in the other thread showing how the powerplay did not suffer in the games he missed for injury, albeit in a small sample size. Now, I don't think the powerplay will actually be as good without him, but I think they could make up for that in other ways.

My belief is that the team could be better off if they used that money on a top 6 forward. It's possible the defense would improve and the 5-on-5 offense could improve, and combined they'd make up for the drop in powerplay. The caveat to that is Sweeney's got a horrific track record when it comes to free agent signings, so I don't necessarily trust him to spend that money wisely, but if I were the GM, it's what I'd look to do.

All completely fair and well laid out points. We simply disagree on a few of them, no big deal. I am curious to learn who this top 6 forward is that everyone keeps talking about though. I worry that making the D less mobile and not as good out of the zone, you're unintentionally also making the forward group less effective offensively. Not worried about the top line, more worried about the Krejci line.

I admit, I also think we have our top 6 RW in Kase and I recognize that this isn't a super popular opinion at the moment. Neither were Coyle or Johansson at this time either though..IMO, health is the only concern there, not ability or even fit.

and yes, of course, trades are hard :laugh:..but I think there's an opportunity to bank some cap space even with signing Krug and potentially address the top 6 RW spot via Palmieri or someone of that ilk at the deadline, should Kase not be able to stay healthy or not work out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JOKER 192

Blow it up
Sponsor
Jun 14, 2010
19,695
18,602
Montreal,Canada
Dude f*** off with the strawman bullshit. I’m only responding to the points you and MMB make. One of your points was paying Joakim Nordstrom an extension before you got to Krug. Finally you got to your actual point on the bolded.

But..As I said, I left $2.1M in cap space on my roster. That can be used for Chara or whatever we want. I didn’t illustrate that the band gets broken up. Who did I subtract? I didn’t even trade Moore. I illustrated that your point that there’s no way to keep Krug unless he takes 6 was absolutely foolish.


Back at you son. Your unreal, I'm done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrainOfJ

Tbaybruin

Registered User
Feb 2, 2016
3,878
4,193
Thanks. I don't think many of us have to think that hard on Torey. We all know what he means to this team. In a sense, he and Pasta represent the pure offense this team projects IMO. Most other teams see the Bruins as a grind-dog, every goal earned, dominate you on the penalty kill kind of team. A team you don't look forward to trying to score on. Ask the Leaf fans. Pasta and Krug IMO make this team so dynamic with their pinpoint execution. A scary combo we cant afford to loose IMO with our Window to win still wide open now and the next year or two.

I have a suspicion that this playoff is coming down to a Oilers/Bruins rematch of the '88 final. This is a special teams match made in heaven and I like our chances much more this time around. Having Krug settled and happy will go a long way to what should be a long 7 game series.
I agree with it all but Bruins in 6. Our D is a lot stronger!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbfan419

member 96824

Guest
Last edited by a moderator:

bbfan419

Registered User
Jul 3, 2006
8,860
9,253
Moncton NB
Is that really the question though? Look no one thought Krug was going to be an elite OFD when he came out of college. If they did then he wouldn't have been a UFA to begin with. Achan had similar production to Krug in the NCAA, which is why the comp comes up so much (also being roughly the same size). Am I saying that Achan is going to be Krug? no because no one knows, just like no one knew about Krug. From the Bruins perspective its do we have a guy that can give up even 80% of Krug's PP production? Is this team a cup contender without Krug? If Krug walks, what can we do with the extra cap space (legit #2RW maybe?).

If Krug is re-signed at say $8 million, it could be you have to part with a guy like Jake DeBrusk depending on his ask. For a team that lacks secondary scoring, that's a pretty big blow because you're probably not getting a player back that's equivalent and cheaper than DeBrusk.
Well said, which was what I was getting at in the original post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOKER 192

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->